 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toy Story is a good example of a film series where every sequel was as good if not better than the previous entry, and the original was already a milestone classic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dollars Trilogy
This is the one that gets cited often and it is true,.the films and scores and plot got better and grander and more stylish.
This is true, THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY was by far the best of the three, though it's is a trilogy in spirit only, they are not sequels or in any way connected or related storywise, but independet movies. Eastwood played a very similar archetype western anti-hero in all three movies, but he was not meant to be the same person.
there is theory and speculation and grey areas about the man wiv no name being called "Joe" in fistful, Mancho in dolars more and Blondie in GBU and further theories about Gbu being a prequel etc but its all up for debate. Eastwood plays essentially the same gunman/bounty hunter in all three films, same outfit, etc and for the purposes of this thread its stil Dollars and Gbu in that order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. No
From Russia With Love
Goldfinger
Thunderball
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not a single thing comes to mind, just the opposite -- all I can name is ones where it got worse:
The Men in Black films.
Are you seriously suggesting that 3 was worse than 2? I didn't just hallucinate that?
Yes, 3 was just a few pegs below the first one, which was awesome. MIIB was garbage of the highest order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dollars Trilogy
This is the one that gets cited often and it is true,.the films and scores and plot got better and grander and more stylish.
This is true, THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY was by far the best of the three, though it's is a trilogy in spirit only, they are not sequels or in any way connected or related storywise, but independet movies. Eastwood played a very similar archetype western anti-hero in all three movies, but he was not meant to be the same person.
there is theory and speculation and grey areas about the man wiv no name being called "Joe" in fistful, Mancho in dolars more and Blondie in GBU and further theories about Gbu being a prequel etc but its all up for debate. Eastwood plays essentially the same gunman/bounty hunter in all three films, same outfit, etc and for the purposes of this thread its stil Dollars and Gbu in that order.
He plays the same type of character but not the same character. Leone was very explicit about this and not all that happy about the movies being marketed as a trilogy. That was done to sell the movies, but they are absolutely not sequels or prequels. They are variations on an archetype gunman, if you will though, and as such can of course be viewed in that context and as trilogy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Star Wars Prequel Trilogy
Mad Max
Dollars Trilogy
Rambo Trilogy
I absolutely don't agree about LOTR, the first depended less on CGI and much more on characters. TTT and ROTK are overblown over-indulgent films, and all in all what little story there is is spread much too far over 9 hrs., not counting the extended editions.
And it didn't get much better after Mad Max 2 did it, one of the greatest action films ever !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah a different character - in the same poncho, same beard, same guns, same sheepskin waistcoat, same cigar, same hat, same personality, - right, clearly not the same! Whatever Leone in his typical Roman way makes up after the event. And if they were supposed to be different, why didnt he make them properly different instead if 100pc the same? Leone was the sort who would say one thing in interview one day and contradict himself the next day, part mischief, part exaggerration, part stirring the pot. Its still a matter of opinion whichever way you look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah a different character - in the same poncho, same beard, same guns, same sheepskin waistcoat, same cigar, same hat, same personality, - right, clearly not the same!
Exactly, and quite clearly. No need to be facetious about it, it's a fact.
It is the same type of character, no one questioned that. But it is not the same character, or, to state it perhpaps more clearly (and more confusing for those who have not watched any of the movies), it IS the same character, but it is not the same person. It is not as if any of the stories is in any way related to any other story, it is not as if Eastwood's character references any other of these stories in any other story, there is not even a hint in any of the movies that they are supposed to be sequels of any type or kind. It's a set of variations on the same type of cowboy. In fact, Bronson's character in Once Upon A Time In The West is yet another variation on that character. If you like to see them as the same person, hey, that's up to you, but it sure isn't in the movies and it was never intended to be as such.
Whatever Leone in his typical Roman way makes up after the event. And if they were supposed to be different, why didnt he make them properly different instead if 100pc the same?
It is the same (type of) character, it is just not the same person. It doesn't matter if he looks and acts the same. Leone deals in archetypes, he is not developing a story arc about a single character. Every "man with no name" persona has a different story arc in these movies, and they are not related to each other. I think that is very obvious, I don't know what is so hard to understand about that? If you feel happier if Eastood played the same person in these three movies, hey, that's up to you, I don't mind, but it certainly is not supported by Leone or any of the events in the movies. And Leone has not been flip-flopping either. Leone has -- to my knowledge -- never said anywhere that Eastwood is supposed to be the same actual same person in these three movies, if you find a quote that supports that, I'd be surprised.
In any case, it may even work well when view these movies and take Eastwood's "no name" persona to be the very same person in every single movie, I don't know if there are any issues that would contradict this (haven't seen the first two in a while), but it is not the idea behind these three movies.
The one thing that connects these movies is Eastwood's cowboy persona, there is NOTHING else connecting them. If the mere look of Eastwood's character matters so much, how come no one notices the striking resemblance between Colonel Mortimer and ruthless Angel Eyes? Are they twin brothers? They are not related either. Leone did three separate Westerns, all around the same cowboy figure, but that figure is not supposed to be the same person in every movie. It's the equivalent of a musical set of variations in movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not a single thing comes to mind, just the opposite -- all I can name is ones where it got worse:
The Men in Black films.
Are you seriously suggesting that 3 was worse than 2? I didn't just hallucinate that?
No, I have it listed under ones where I said the films got worse. You seriously aren't saying Mi3 is as good or better than the first film, are you?
(the quote function here SUCKS)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
